The effect of Servant Leadership on the Psychological Well...
Transcript of The effect of Servant Leadership on the Psychological Well...
The effect of Servant Leadership on the Psychological Well -Being of
employees: A Descriptive Study of MSME automation Company
Dr. Suman Pathak
Professor, MATS Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship
Bangalore,
Devpriya Dey
Research Scholar – Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu,
ABSTRACT The study of Servant Leadership and its associated outcomes have been of recent interest ever
since Greenleaf’s new contribution to the theories of Leadership. This research investigated if,
and whether, any relationship exists between servant leadership and psychological well being of
employees in an organization. The Servant Leadership Questionnaire developed by Barbuto and
Wheeler (2006) was used to measure Servant Leadership and The Oxford Happiness
Questionnaire by Argyle, Martin and Crossland (1989) was used to study Psychological Well-
being. Recent issues of many scandals in business, government, banks, nonprofit organizations,
and other organizations create a kind of mistrust on leadership of the organization. Many
researchers are working on leadership models and redefining those models of ethical leadership.
These models of ethical leadership can answer to the burdens of a deeply interdependent global
society. The study has been conducted on the employees in a micro, small and medium
manufacturing enterprise located in India. Pearson Correlation tests, ANOVA and use of t-tests
found a statistically significant p< 0.001 value. A positive relationship between Servant
Leadership and Psychological Well-Being r =0.63: 63%. On the basis of factors hypothesis was
developed and tested. By using all statistical tool the significant relationship proved between
servant leadership and psychological wellbeing
Keywords: Servant Leadership, Psychological Well Being, Automation, MSME
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 950
Introduction
Recent issues of many scandals in business government, banks, nonprofit organizations, created
mistrust on the leadership of the organization. Many researchers are working on redefining
leadership models of ethics that can be an answer to the demands of a deeply interdependent
global society. The new paradigm shift of existing leadership models to alternative leadership
model of organizational leadership moves beyond the ‘competency efforts’, ‘performance and
productivity’ usually used to measure leader effectiveness– highlighting in its place to the
ethical, sensitive and interpersonal dimensions of leadership behaviors. Such a model was
brought about by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970’s.Employees who endorse to an organization
beyond their required day today jobs have been the theme of growing interest among scholars
and managers alike (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, &Woehr, 2007; Ilies,
Nahrgang, &Morgeson, 2007).
Servant leaders are those who manage organizational Issues by replacing individual interests to
those of organizational stakeholders and the leader for whom leadership as an opening for
service to persons, organization, and community rather than a method to achieve private
authority and respect. Greenleaf and Spears (2002).
According to Hale and Fields (2007) servant leadership is “an understanding and practice of
leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader, emphasizing
leader behaviors that focus on follower development and de-emphasizing glorification of the
leader”. Spears (2004) outlined 11features of servant leaders: Calling, listening, empathy,
healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth, and building
community.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 951
Characteristics of Servant Leadership
Calling: It is a wish to oblige and having an inclination to sacrifice self-interest for the
advantage of others.
Listening: It is the Leaders who are willingly ready to listen even the most unusual ideas
from their followers, this nature of behavior enhance follower commitment.
Empathy: Empathy means understanding others problems as it is their own problem.
That’s give an better understanding of their follower which build trusts.
Healing: When people expectations of optimisms, thoughts, or relationships fail or
converted into distress, that time healing can solve shattered confidences and emotional
pain
Awareness: Awareness is the leader’s knowledge of understanding of environment
Persuasion: To inspiration people without using legitimate power or authority.
Conceptualization: Conceptualization encourages people to apply and developmental
models with creativity.
Foresight: To anticipate the future for the organization and its members.
Stewardship: Stewardship involves making the organization and its people to contribute
in to the society.
Growth: Greenleaf et al (1996) reminded us that the outcome of servant leadership is To
provide their followers a positive direction for their development.
Community building: Servant leadership develops committed people and organizes them
as a community to provide a platform to share their issues.
Servant leadership includes an ethical factor, the factor which was not very prominent in the
other leadership theories. Some research evidence clearly mentioned the uniqueness of servant
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 952
leadership from other leadership theories. For example, Ehrhart (2004) reported that servant
leadership significantly predicted employee commitment, satisfaction with supervisor, perceived
supervisor support, procedural justice much more than available in the leader–member exchange
and transformational leadership. Liden (2008) explained that servant leadership behavior have
inconsistency in organizational citizenship behavior and in the performance beyond that forecast
by transformational leadership and most of other leadership styles.
Psychological wellbeing broadly defined as “happiness, life satisfaction, and self growth”-
Bradburn (1969), represents one of the most important aspects of efficient psychological
functioning. Psychological well-being is usually abstracted as some blend of positive affective
states such as happiness and operative with maximum effectiveness in individual and social life.
Huppert(2009) defined psychological well being as, “Psychological well-being is about lives
going well. It is the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively.”It was proved
through researches that psychological well-being occurs as a result of positive feelings and most
importantly happiness. Many researchers believe that wellbeing is not just about being happy or
gratified, but also about being vigorously engaged with life and connecting with other people
(Black et al., 2015).Maintaining a sense of psychological wellbeing and continuing to be socially
engaged in life and in organizations is an important part of growth of an individual in a healthy
way.
Objective of Study
Since Servant Leadership is an emerging concept most researchers are trying to identify its
importance and the strength of relationship it has with many factors like organization citizenship
behavior and employee attitudes (Walumbwa et. al., 2010), organization commitment (Drury,
2004), effectiveness of teams(Irving, 2005) and so on.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 953
The primary objective of this research dissertation is to investigate this relationship between
Servant Leadership and Psychological Well-being in a MSME.
Literature Review
The concept of servant Leadership was coined by Greenleaf in 1970 and ever since then it has
been added as one of the styles of Leadership. Even if Servant Leadership is same as
transformational Leadership, it has been proved that servant leadership stands alone as a single
type of leadership and has few similar characteristics to share with other leadership styles. Some
of the researches that are central to this study are given below. Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi
Song and Qing Lu (2012) tested the influence of servant leadership on 2 group climates -
employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. The study was done by Fred O.
Walumbwa, Chad A. Hartnell, and AdegokeOke (2010) and the focus is on the study of servant
leadership and other organizational concepts. Sharon L. Drury, Indiana Wesleyan University,
(August 2004). Organizational commitment was measured with the Meyer, Allen, and Smith
(1993) commitment scales. Organizational Leadership Assessment (Laub, 1999).Measured the
servant leadership perception and job satisfaction and found a significant and positive
relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.
Positive affectivity (PA) describes that how individuals practice positive emotions and interact
with others and with their environment. Those with high positive affectivity are typically
confident, active, enthusiastic, energetic, and alert.
Negative affectivity (NA) it means the understanding of negative emotions and poor self-
concept. Negative emotions are irritation, dislike, disgust, onus, anxiety and helplessness. Low
negative affectivity is characterized by peace and serenity, along with states of self-reliance,
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 954
liveliness, and great eagerness. Life satisfaction (LS) is not the expression of a moment in-fact it
is actually the valuation of life as a whole.
Psychological Well Being: Components
The Psychological Well-being model of Carol Ryff’s is very different then the past available
models especially on the well-being is multidimensional, not only about happiness, or positive
feelings. And according to Velleman (1991), a good life is composed and complete, fetching
each aspects of well-being, instead of being barely focused. Ryff et al (2008) convey this
principle in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, where the goal of life isn’t just be happy or feeling
good, but also about living honorably.
It was proved through researches that psychological well-being occurs as a result of positive
feelings and most importantly happiness. Social wellbeing is a type of participation with people
and society. When people try to meet the rising demands of the society or the construct in which
they are present it leads to stress as a result of demanding situations which will eventually lessen
the psychological well being of employees.
Since Servant Leadership is an emerging concept most researchers are trying to identify its
importance and the strength of relationship it has with many factors like organization citizenship
behavior and employee attitudes (Walumbwa et. al., 2010), organization commitment (Drury,
2004), effectiveness of teams(Irving, 2005) and so on.
Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi Song and Qing Lu (2012) tested the influence of servant
leadership on 2 group climates - employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior.
The Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) develop commitment scales to measure Organizational
commitment. The servant leadership perception and job satisfaction were measured with the
Organizational Leadership Assessment (Laub, 1999). The Pearson correlation tests found a
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 955
significant and positive relationship between that the organizational commitment and servant
leadership had a statistically significant contrary relationship.Justin A. Irving (2005) focused on
investigating the relationship between servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. A study
by Saundra J. Reinke (2004)determines the relationship between perceptions of servant
leadership and the level of trust between employees and supervisors. Jia Hu and Robert C. Liden
(2011)examined goal and process clarity and servant leadership as the background of team
potency and subsequent team effectiveness, operationalized as team performance and
organizational citizenship behavior. A study was conducted by Errol E.Joseph (2005). The aim
was to explore the relationship between servant leadership and leader trust, and employee
perceptions the results proposed that perceptions of servant leadership correlated positively with
both leader trust and organizational trust. The study by Oris Guillaume, Andrew Honeycutt and
Amy R. Savage-Austin USA (2013) was focused on to observe the influence of Servant
Leadership on job satisfaction. The features of Servant Leadership recognized in past researches
by Greenleaf (1977) and Spears (1998) have an important role in job satisfaction. Servant
Leadership was also studied in a hospital setting in a study called by Jack Thomas McCann,
Daniel Graves & Lieven Cox (2014).A study was conducted to prove that servant leadership led
to a decrease in job burnout by Wally Rude(2004).Psychological well being is the most
important factor or variable that most researches try to examine due to extreme work stress and
lack of life satisfaction among people today. In most of the researches psychological well being
is studied as an independent variable rather than as a dependent variable mainly due to the effect
of other factors like job satisfaction, organization culture, supervisor involvement and so that
leads to an individual’s psychological well being. A study by Cynthia A. Thompson and David J.
Prottas (2002 was done to examine relationships among availability of job autonomy, informal
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 956
organizational support, perceived support, employee attitudes and employee psychological well
being. The result proved availability of family benefits was associated with pressure, lifetime
satisfaction, and turnover purposes, Job autonomy and relaxed organizational support were
associated with job satisfaction, A study was done by Thomas A. Wright and Reno Russell
Cropanzano (2000) about a comparative test of relative contribution of job satisfaction and
psychological well being as predictors of employee performance. The findings showed that it
was the psychological well being of individuals rather than the job satisfaction that led to job
performance. A Study on the “Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-Being as Non-additive
Predictors of Workplace Turnover”by Thomas A. Wright and Douglas G. Bonett (2007) was
done and Psychological well-being was found to rational the relation between job satisfaction
and job separation, such that job satisfaction was an strong reason of turnover in the availability
of low psychological well-being. Aaron Cohen and Orit Shamai (2009) focus on the trend by
examining the relationship between individual values and psychological well-being (PWB) and
affective organizational commitment. Brad Shuck and Thomas G.Reio (2014) were focused on
how poor workforce engagement can be detrimental to organizations because of the ensuing
decrease in employee well-being and productivity. Farida Rasulzada and Ingrid Dackert (2009)
showed a significant relationship between perceived organizational creativity and innovation and
individual psychological well-being. Zulkarnain Amin and KharissaPratiwi Akbar (2013). This
article indicated that how the turnover intentions can be reduced if the employees believe that the
organization will fulfill their needs, through improving of psychological well-being. Morgan
Wilkinson (2013) outcome of the research showed that there was a significant correlation
between work life balance and Psychological well-being. Alexander Panaccio and Christian
Vandenberghe (2009).they analyze the involvement of four mindsets of organizational support
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 957
and the perceived organizational commitment. Carol D. Ryff (1989) highlights what
psychological wellbeing is and its importance in a real world context. Nielsen, K., Randall, R.,
Yarker, J. & Brenner (2008) designed theory-driven model and was tested using Structural
Equation Modelling about the relationships between work characteristics, well-being and
leadership. James K Harter, Frank L and Corey L.M Keyes (2003) focuses on the well-being
approach to understand the benefits of promoting the well being of workers.
Research Design
Figure 1- Framework of Research
The Independent variable is the “Servant Leadership” (SL). The SL variable is a multi-
dimensional variable comprising of 5 dimensions-Altruistic Calling, Emotional Healing,
Wisdom, Persuasive Mapping and Organizational Stewardship. All the 5 dimensions of SL have
been collectively measured as a single scale by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) by using 23
Servant Leadership Psychological
Well-being
Altruistic
Calling
Emotional
Healing
Wisdom Persuasive
Mapping
Organizational
Stewardship
Positive
Affectivity Negative
Affectivity Life
Satisfaction
Dimensions of Servant Leadership Dimensions of Psychological
Well-being
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 958
question items. The Servant Leader (SL) scale (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006) was employed to
measure the display of Servant Leader attributes and dimensions by a supervisor towards his /
her subordinates. The dependent variable is Psychological Well-being (PWB) comprising of 3
dimensions -Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Life Satisfaction. All the 3
dimensions have been collectively measured in the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Argyle,
Martin and Crossland, 1989) by using 29 question items. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire
(OHQ) scale was employed to measure the levels of Psychological Well-being of all the
employees. The Demographic Variables are Age and Grade.
Hypothesis
1. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no correlation between Servant Leadership and Psychological
Well-Being of employees
Alternate Hypothesis (H1): A significant correlation between Servant Leadership and
Psychological Well-being of employees.
2. Null Hypotheses (H02): No relation between the two Age groups’ display of Psychological
well being
Alternate Hypothesis (H2a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Age groups’ display of
Psychological well being
3. Null Hypotheses (H03): There is no difference between the 2 Age groups’ perception of
Servant Leadership
Alternate Hypothesis (H3a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Age groups’
perception of Servant Leadership
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 959
4. Null Hypotheses (H04): There is no difference between the two Employee Grades’ (Levels)
display of Psychological well being
Alternate Hypothesis (H4a): There is a statistical difference between the 2 Employee Grades’
(Levels) display of Psychological well being
5. Null Hypotheses (H05): There is no difference between the two Employee Grades’ (Levels)
perception of Servant Leadership
Alternate Hypothesis (H5a): There is a statistical difference between the two Employee Grades’
(Levels) perception of Servant Leadership
Data Analysis
Demographic data profile of the respondents
The profile of these participants, according to their Age and Grade Levels are as shown
below.The percentage ratio between male and female was 80% and 20%. The average age of the
respondents was 33. The age ranged between 22 and 58. Respondents fell in the category of Age
Group (22 – 34) and (34 and above). The Grade Levels of employees were categorized into 2
primary levels – Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 employees corresponded to those employees who
were at a rank (grade) of a Top Management or Senior Management levels, whilst Level 2
employees corresponded to those employees who were at a rank (grade) of a Middle Level or
Junior Level employee.
Statistical Analyses to ascertain and analyze the data
(i)Inferential Statistics:
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 960
The aim of the inferential statistics was to try to infer from the sample data what the population
might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an
observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by
chance in this study.
TABLE A
Summary output of ANOVA, t-test, Regression Analysis and Correlation Analysis
PWB SLQ
PWB 1
SLQ 0.625787487 1
df SS MS F
Significance
P values
Regression 1 1.550253371 1.550253371 18.02310861 0.000216943
Residual 28 2.408413295 0.086014761
Total 29 3.958666667
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 0.862929457 0.551534623 1.564597075 0.128910555 -0.266838003 1.992696917 -0.266838003 1.992696917
OHQ 0.486176052 0.114519307 4.245363189 0.000216943 0.251593885 0.720758219 0.251593885 0.720758219
Multiple R 0.625787487
R Square 0.391609979
Adjusted R Square 0.369881764
Standard Error 0.293282731
Observations 30
PWB SLQ
Mean 4.793333333 3.193333333
Variance 0.22616092 0.136505747
Observations 30 30
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 55
t Stat 14.5521375
P(T<=t) one-tail 8.28664E-21
t Critical one-tail 1.673033965
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.65733E-20
t Critical two-tail 2.004044783
SUMMARY OUTPUT of ANOVA, 't' test, Regression Analysis and Correlations Analysis
Regression Statistics
ANOVA
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Research Dissertation: The effects of Servant Leadership (SL) on Psychological Well being (PWB) - An MSME Study
Interpretation of Analysis:1) A total of 30 Samples (questionnaires) shown in the analysis as 'Observations'
were administered
2) 2 questionnaires - SLQ (measuring Servant Leadership) and OHQ (Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire measuring Psychological Well being) were consolidated
and administered through a Survey Questionnaire for all the 30 respondents
3) All the 30 respondents are Employees of an MSME - Micro, Small, Medium
Enterprise - and an Environmental Simulation Manufacturing company in Bangalore
4) SLQ comprised of 23 questions and OHQ comprised of 29 questions
5) The respondents' individual scores to all the questions for both SLQ and OHQ were
summated and averaged.
6) The Mean of scores for PWB and SLQ (Average of all respondents' scores for PWB
and SLQ) are 4.7933 and 3.1933
7) Written Results: There is a significant positive relationship between Servant
Leadership and the Psychological Well Being, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63
(63%), that means that the Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63%
of the variation in the response or dependent variable (Psychological Well Being)
and this value is statistically significant at p < 0.0001
8) We can cross check the significance by looking at t Stat values being greater than t
Critical one-tail values
Pearsons Correlations between PWB and SLQ
The Pearsons Correlations Co-efficient r = 0.6257
between PWB and SLQ meaning that SL fully
explains roughly 63% (0.63) of the variances that
occur in the PWB variable. As such PWB and SL are
significantly correlated. The significance level p is
shown below in the table. P-value = 0.0002, that
means significance is at P < 0.001 levels
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 961
Interpretation of Analysis:
From Table A we can understand that all respondents are Employees of an MSME - Micro,
Small, Medium Enterprise - and an Environmental Simulation Manufacturing company in
Bangalore. The respondents' individual scores to all the questions for both SLQ and OHQ were
summated and averaged. The Mean of scores for PWB and SLQ (Average of all respondents'
scores for PWB and SLQ) are 4.7933 and 3.1933
Inferential Results: There is a positive and significant relationship between Psychological Well
Beingand Servant Leadership, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63 (63%), that means that the
Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63% of the variation in the response or
dependent variable (Psychological Well Being) and this value is statistically significant at p <
0.0001
We can cross check the significance by looking at t Stat values being greater than t-Critical one-
tail values. T-Stat value stands at 14.55 and t critical 2 tail value stands at 2.004.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics are well-known from inferential statistics (or inductive statistics), in
that descriptive statistics objective is to précis a sample, not to use the data to study about the
population it is assumed that the sample of data is a true representation of the population .In the
descriptive statistics for the present research study, the demographic data of Employee’s Age
group and Employees’ Grade (Level) or rank was used as the sample to summarize the findings.
As we can see from the Tables B1 through B4, we use and summarize samples of Age group 1
(employees falling into the Age category 22 to 34), Age group 2 (employees falling into the Age
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 962
category of 34 years and above), Grade or Level 1 (employees falling into the Employee Rank of
Top Management and Senior Management) and Grade or Level 2 (employees falling into the
Employee Rank of Middle Level and Junior Level Management).
Table -B
Descriptive Statistics for Age groups and Employee Grade Levels
Age group 1
(22 – 34)
Age group 2
(>=35)
Grade level 1
(TM and SM)
Grade level 2
(MM and JM)
Mean Scores of PWB 4.56 5.22 4.82 4.77
Standard Deviation of PWB 0.41 0.44 0.54 0.51
Median Scores of PWB 4.5 5.3 4.7 4.6
Mean Scores of SL 3.32 3.72 3.35 3.44
Standard Deviation of SL 0.29 0.28 0.46 0.40
Median Scores of SL 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.7
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
t-Stat values (PWB) -0.419 0.27
t-critical values (PWB) 2.04 2.04
t-Stat values (SL) -3.73 -0.54
t-critical values (SL) 2.04 2.04
Interpretation of the Scores – Descriptive Details pertaining to the Demographics
Table -B1
Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Age (Groups) and Servant Leadership
(SL)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 963
The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Age group 1 stood at 3.32 whilst for Age group 2 it
stood at 3.72. The standard deviation, means how much the members of a group differ from the
mean value for the group, stood at 0.29 for Age group 1 and 0.28 for Age group 2, so the
dispersion and spread was quite low
Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, and if
so then how, we do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical
two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2
Age Group 1 - Ages
between 22 and 34
Age Group 1 - Ages
above 35
3.9 3.9
3.3 3.7
3.3 3.7 Mean 3.326666667 Mean 3.72
3.3 3.9 Standard Error 0.075886298 Standard Error 0.073159968
2.9 3.7 Median 3.3 Median 3.7
3.3 2.9 Mode 3.3 Mode 3.9
3 4 Standard Deviation 0.293906367 Standard Deviation 0.283347339
3.2 3.9 Sample Variance 0.086380952 Sample Variance 0.080285714
3.9 3.9 Kurtosis 0.436821031 Kurtosis 4.681371427
3.3 3.9 Skewness 0.94458152 Skewness -2.059865008
3.7 3.7 Range 1 Range 1.1
3.3 3.7 Minimum 2.9 Minimum 2.9
3.3 3.9 Maximum 3.9 Maximum 4
3.1 3.7 Sum 49.9 Sum 55.8
3.1 3.3 Count 15 Count 15
Statistical Analysis
Age Group 1 -
Ages b/n 22 and 34
Age Group 1 -
Ages above 35
Mean 3.326666667 3.72
Variance 0.086380952 0.080285714
Observations 15 15
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 28
t Stat -3.731487639
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000429529
t Critical one-tail 1.701130934
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000859058
t Critical two-tail 2.048407142
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
between Age Group 1 and Age Group 2's scores for
Servant Leadership Scores
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' AGE (GROUPS) AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP (SL)
Descriptive Analysis
1) Age Groups 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Group 1 comprising of
employees belonging to the Ages between 22 and 34, whilst Group 2 comprises
of employees belonging to the Ages above 35
2) The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Age group 1 stood at 3.32 whilst
for Age group 2 it stood at 3.72
3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how much the
members of a group differ from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.29 for
Age group 1 and 0.28 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was quite low
4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2
are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t
Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption
that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept
it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -3.73 is lesser than -2.04 or -3.73 is not
greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means of
the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2
groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean
values for Servant Leadership
Summary Statistics - Age Group 1 Summary Statistics - Age Group 2
Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and 34 Age Group 1 - Ages above 35
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 964
are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -3.73 is lesser than -2.04
or -3.73 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means of
the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of
Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Servant Leadership.
It further indicates that lower age group (22 – 34) feels that they receive lower levels of Servant
Leadership
Table-B2
Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Age (Groups) and Psychological Well
being (PWB)
The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Age group 1 stood at 4.56 whilst for Age
group 2 it stood at 5.22. The standard deviation, meaning the quantity articulating by how much
Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and
34
Age Group 1 - Ages
above 35
4.7 4.4
5.4 4.5
4.3 5.4 Mean 4.566666667 Mean 5.226666667
4.7 5.2 Standard Error 0.108085798 Standard Error 0.114420555
4.5 5.7 Median 4.5 Median 5.3
4.6 5.3 Mode 4.3 Mode 5.7
3.9 5 Standard Deviation 0.418614495 Standard Deviation 0.443148905
5.1 4.6 Sample Variance 0.175238095 Sample Variance 0.196380952
5.1 5.2 Kurtosis -0.419591573 Kurtosis -0.56609682
4.4 5.7 Skewness 0.466131969 Skewness -0.68777388
4.1 5.3 Range 1.5 Range 1.3
4.9 5.1 Minimum 3.9 Minimum 4.4
4.3 5.6 Maximum 5.4 Maximum 5.7
4.3 5.7 Sum 68.5 Sum 78.4
4.2 5.7 Count 15 Count 15
Statistical Analysis
Age Group 1 -
Ages b/n 22 and 34
Age Group 1 -
Ages above 35
Mean 4.566666667 5.226666667
Variance 0.175238095 0.196380952
Observations 15 15
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 28
t Stat -4.193151772
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000124919
t Critical one-tail 1.701130934
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000249837
t Critical two-tail 2.048407142
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
between Age Group 1 and Age Group 2's scores for Psychological Well being
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' AGE (GROUPS) AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING (PWB)
Descriptive Analysis
1) Age Groups 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Group 1 comprising
of employees belonging to the Ages between 22 and 34, whilst Group 2
comprises of employees belonging to the Ages above 35
2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Age group 1 stood at 4.56
whilst for Age group 2 it stood at 5.22
3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how much the
members of a group differ from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.41
for Age group 1 and 0.44 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was
quite moderate
4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2
are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -
t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the
assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1 and 2 are the same,
else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -4.19 is lesser than -
2.04 or -4.19 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the
assumption that 'Means of the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically
the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have
statistically different mean values for Psychological Well being
Psychological Well Being Scores Descriptive Statistical Analysis for Age Groups v/s Psychological Well being
Summary Statistics - Age Group 1 Summary Statistics - Age Group 2
Age Group 1 - Ages between 22 and 34 Age Group 1 - Ages above 35
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 965
the members of a group vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.41 for Age group 1
and 0.44 for Age group 2, so the dispersion and spread was quite moderate
Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Age groups 1 and 2 are the same, and if
so then how, Weprepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t
Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Age groups 1
and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is definitely the case, -4.19 is lesser than
-2.04 or -4.19 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we DO NOT accept the assumption that 'Means
of the values for Age groups 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of
Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Psychological Well
being. It further indicates that the higher age group (Above 34 years of age) feels that they
receive higher levels of Psychological Well being
Inference from Tables B1 and B2: It clearly indicates that low levels of perceived Servant
Leadership amongst the younger age group (22-34) also reflects lower levels of Psychological
Well being, whilst higher levels of perceived Servant Leadership amongst the older age group
(Equal to or Above 35 years of age) also reflects higher levels of Psychological Well being
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 966
Table -B3
Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Grade Level and Servant Leadership (SL)
The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Level 1 stood at 3.35 whilst for Level 2 it stood at
3.44. The standard deviation, meaning the quantity stating by how much the members of a group
vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.46 for Level 1 and 0.40 for Level 2, so the
dispersion and spread was quite moderate
Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1 and 2 are the same, and if so
then how, We prepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t
Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Levels 1 and
2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is not the case, -0.54 is not < -2.01 or -0.54 is
not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for Levels 1
and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have
similar mean values for Servant Leadership
Level 1 - comprising employees
of TMT and SMT
Level 2 comprising
MMT and JMT
3.7 3
3.7 3.3 Mean 3.353333333 Mean 3.44
2.3 3 Standard Error 0.119070474 Standard Error 0.104562581
2.8 2.3 Median 3.5 Median 3.7
2.8 3.3 Mode 3.7 Mode 3.7
3.5 3.7 Standard Deviation 0.461157963 Standard Deviation 0.404969135
3.5 3.7 Sample Variance 0.212666667 Sample Variance 0.164
4 3.7 Kurtosis 0.310765335 Kurtosis 3.592935916
3.1 3.6 Skewness -0.919910499 Skewness -1.87691126
3.3 3.5 Range 1.7 Range 1.4
3.6 3.7 Minimum 2.3 Minimum 2.3
3 3.7 Maximum 4 Maximum 3.7
3.6 3.7 Sum 50.3 Sum 51.6
3.7 3.7 Count 15 Count 15
3.7 3.7
Statistical Analysis Level 1 Level 2
Mean 3.353333333 3.44
Variance 0.212666667 0.164
Observations 15 15
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 28
t Stat -0.54691411
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.294385203
t Critical one-tail 1.701130934
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.588770405
t Critical two-tail 2.048407142
Servant Leadership Scores
Level 1 Level 2
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
between Employee Level 1 and Employee Level 2's scores for Servant
Leadership
Statistical Analysis Statistical Analysis
Descriptive Analysis
1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1
comprising of employees belonging to the Top Management Team
and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees
belonging to the Middle and Junior Levels of Management
2) The Mean Scores for Servant Leadership for Level 1 stood at 3.35
whilst for Level 2 it stood at 3.44
3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how
much the members of a group differ from the mean value for the
group, stood at 0.46 for Level 1 and 0.40 for Level 2, so the dispersion
and spread was quite moderate
4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1
and 2 are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test
(inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail,
we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between
Levels 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is
not the case, -0.54 is not < -2.01 or -0.54 is not greater than 2.04.
Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for
Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups
of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have similar mean values for Servant
Leadership
Descriptive Statistical Analysis Employee Grade Levels v/s SL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' GRADE (LEVEL) AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP (SL)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 967
Table-B4
Descriptive Statistical Analysis involving Employees’ Grade Level and Psychological Well
being
1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1 comprising of employees belonging
to the Top Management Team and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees
belonging to the Middle and Junior Levels of Management
2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Level 1 stood at 4.82 whilst for Level 2 it
stood at 4.77
3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity stating by how much the members of a group
vary from the mean value for the group, stood at 0.54 for Level 1 and 0.51 for Level 2, so the
dispersion and spread was quite moderate
Level 1 - comprising
TMT and SMT
Level 2 -
MMT & JMT
5 3.9 Statistical Analysis Level 1 Statistical Analysis Level 2
4.6 5.1 Mean 4.826666667 Mean 4.773333333
5.2 5.1 Standard Error 0.139545748 Standard Error 0.131463073
5.7 4.4 Median 4.7 Median 4.6
5.7 4.5 Mode 4.3 Mode 5.1
5.3 4.6 Standard Deviation 0.540458359 Standard Deviation 0.509154294
4.7 4.4 Sample Variance 0.292095238 Sample Variance 0.259238095
5.4 4.5 Kurtosis -1.181567688 Kurtosis -1.22432696
4.3 5.4 Skewness 0.313542189 Skewness 0.017877626
4.7 5.2 Range 1.6 Range 1.7
4.1 5.3 Minimum 4.1 Minimum 3.9
4.9 5.1 Maximum 5.7 Maximum 5.6
4.3 5.6 Sum 72.4 Sum 71.6
4.3 4.3 Count 15 Count 15
4.2 4.2
Statistical Analysis Level 1 Level 2
Mean 4.826666667 4.773333333
Variance 0.292095238 0.259238095
Observations 15 15
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 28
t Stat 0.278187257
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.391456318
t Critical one-tail 1.701130934
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.782912637
t Critical two-tail 2.048407142
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
between Employee Level 1 and Employee Level 2's scores
for Psychological Well Being
Psychological Well Being Scores
Descriptive Analysis
1) Levels 1 and 2 comprise 15 employees each, with Level 1
comprising of employees belonging to the Top Management Team
and Senior Management, whilst Level2 comprises of employees
belonging to the Middle and Junior Levels of Management
2) The Mean Scores for Psychological Well being for Level 1 stood at
4.82 whilst for Level 2 it stood at 4.77
3) The standard deviation, meaning the quantity expressing by how
much the members of a group differ from the mean value for the
group, stood at 0.54 for Level 1 and 0.51 for Level 2, so the dispersion
and spread was quite moderate
4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1
and 2 are the same, and if so then how, We do a two-tail test
(inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t Critical two-tail,
we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between
Levels 1 and 2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is
not the case, 0.27 is not lesser than -2.04 or -0.27 is not greater than
2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values
for Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2
groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2 - have similar mean values for
Psychological Well being
Summary Statistics - Level 1 Summary Statistics - Level 2
Descriptive Statistical Analysis for Employee Grade Levels v/s PWB
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES' GRADE (LEVEL) AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING (PWB)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 968
4) Conclusion: In order to ascertain if the 'Mean' values for Levels 1 and 2 are the same, and if so
then how, We prepare a two-tail test (inequality). lf t Stat < -t Critical two-tail or t Stat > t
Critical two-tail, we DO NOT accept the assumption that the Mean values between Levels 1 and
2 are the same, else we accept it. Here as we see, it is not the case, 0.27 is not lesser than -2.04 or
-0.27 is not greater than 2.04. Therefore, we accept the assumption that 'Means of the values for
Levels 1 and 2 are statistically the same', meaning that the 2 groups of Analysis - Levels 1 and 2
- have similar mean values for Psychological well being
VII Discussion of Research Results
Presentation of each hypothesis test
1. As we have seen from the Analysis above as well as Table 1A, and the subsequent
interpretation, There is a noteworthy positive relationship between Servant Leadership and the
Psychological Well Being, with Pearson's co-efficient 'r' = 0.63 (63%), that means that the
Independent Variable (Servant Leadership) explains 63% of the variation in the response or
dependent variable (Psychological Well Being) and this value is statistically significant at p <
0.0001
So we have not accepted the Null hypothesis (Ho) whilst at the same time we have accepted the
Alternate Hypothesis (H1)
Similarly we look at the hypothesis concerning the demographic variables of Age and Grade
Level and see, based on our analysis and results, how they pan out on their relationship with
Psychological Well being and Servant Leadership. We look at each of the hypotheses as follows:
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 969
2. As seen in the analysis and results from the above tables, we see that both the groups of
Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values for Psychological Well-
being, the Null hypothesis (Ho2) rejected and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis (H2a)
3. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically different mean values
for Servant Leadership, we rejected the Null hypothesis (Ho3) and accepted the Alternate
Hypothesis (H3a)
4. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically similar mean values
for Psychological well being we accept the Null hypothesis (Ho4) and rejected the Alternate
Hypothesis (H4a)
5. As both the groups of Analysis - Age groups 1 and 2 - have statistically similar mean values
for Servant Leadership, we accept the Null hypothesis (Ho5) and rejected the Alternate
Hypothesis (H5a)
VIII Research Suggestions
It is vitally important for the employees to display high levels of Psychological well being
(PWB), as PWB is seen to be linked to Job Satisfaction, Motivation as well as Employee Health.
There are several ways to promote PWB in organizations and organizations of the day will do
well to implement Human Resources interventions, with motivational techniques and programs
to inculcate higher levels of PWB.
This research has shown, the presence of Servant Leadership will suffice for an employee’s
PWB levels to be higher, and thereby increase the motivation and satisfaction levels too. In the
backdrop of this research, the suggestions from the research will be then to promote Servant
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 970
Leaders, as well and this may involve having or designing Leadership programs, Leadership
Development and fostering a culture wherein Servant Leaders are recognized and honored.
So the organizations across the world have to promote this kind of Servant Leadership so that
subordinates get a feeling of togetherness and a collective sense of purpose, which will then
promote their PWB.
In the organization regardless of the persons’ positions, each one (whether a leader or a sub-
ordinate) has to be trained for awareness, acceptance, appreciation and recognition of both
Servant Leadership attributes as well as Psychological Well being.
Companies should create a new or change existing corporate/organizational culture that is
appropriate for fostering Servant Leadership styles with its values, norms, beliefs and operational
practices. This will be a win-win situation, particularly as the Servant Leader dimensions that we
have measured in this research do promote the leaders (who may reinforce their behavior by
further embracing Servant attributes) as well as the sub-ordinates who have a reason to go well
above and beyond their stated mandate. As such the employees and the organization would
benefit from it largely too.
Next, in order to increase Servant Leadership practices, organizations should try to make policies
and regulations and organizational bylaws as clear and transparent as possible along with
comprehensive job descriptions and clear reinforcement and regulatory mechanisms thereby
reducing the volatility of a consequence of a particular ‘Unservant’ like behavior. Empowerment
and supportive environment where subordinates feel comfortable expressing opinions and
disagreements may lead them to go beyond their organizationally defined roles and feel higher
sense of PWB, without dithering from ambiguous and uncertain consequences of it.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 971
In a nutshell, organizations should embrace aspects aimed towards promoting Servant
Leadership, and also recognize the mechanisms which will ascertain the PWB feelings of the
sub-ordinates, as a reason for the Servant Leaders’ behaviors. Currently globalization, increased
subcontracting, outsourcing, strategic alliance from all over the world, and other inter-and intra-
corporate networking, has brought forth what is called “synthesized approach”, is taking the
place of conventional outlook of two dimensional continuum between a Supervisor and a Sub-
ordinate. As such it is vital that there is a relook on this Servant Leader – Psychological Well
being continuum by the organizations to add value to its people practices, not only from a
psychological perspective but also from a pragmatic perspective.
REFERENCES
1) Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality
and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas, & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social
psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189–203). North-Holland: Elsevier.
2) Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of
servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), pp.300-326.
3) Bass, B.M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), pp.19-31.
4) Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (pp. 43-44). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
5) Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M. (1990). Bass &Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
6) Black, S. V., Cooper, R., Martin, K. R., Brage, S., Kuh, D., & Stafford, M. (2015).
Physical activity and mental well-being in a cohort aged 60–64 years. American journal
of preventive medicine, 49(2), 172-180.
7) Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being.
8) Cohen, W.A. (1990). The art of the leader. Prentice Hall Press.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 972
9) Cohen, A., &Shamai, O. (2009). The relationship between individual values,
psychological well-being, and organizational commitment among Israeli police
officers. Policing-an International Journal of Police Strategies & Management -
POLICING , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 30-51, 2010
10) Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ... and others
don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
11) Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of servant leadership and
employee loyalty: The mediating role of employee satisfaction. I Business, 4(03), 208.
12) Drury, S. L. (2004). Servant Leadership and Organizational Commitment. In Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable (pp. 1-14).
13) Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94.
14) Grant, A.M. and Mayer, D.M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and
impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), p.900.
15) Greenleaf, R.K. (1974). Trustees as servants. Center for Applied Studies.
16) Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
17) Greenleaf, R. K., Fraker, A. T., & Spears, L. C. (1996). Seeker and servant: Reflections
on religious leadership (Vol. 157). Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers
18) Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership.
19) Guillaume, O., Honeycutt, A., & Savage-Austin, A. R. (2012). The Impact Of Servant
Leadership On Job Satisfaction.
20) Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study
of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.
21) Harter, James K., Schmidt, Frank L., & Keyes, Corey L. M (2003). Well-being in the
workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies.
Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. , (pp. 205-224). Washington,
DC, US: American Psychological Association.
22) Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior (p. 65).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 973
23) Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., &Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion
domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied
psychology, 92(2), 555.
24) Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological Well‐being: Evidence Regarding its Causes and
Consequences†. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 1(2), 137-164.
25) Hu, J., &Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an
examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4), 851.
26) Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., &Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.
27) Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams(Doctoral
dissertation, Regent University).
28) Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,
and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.
29) Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The leadership
quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.
30) Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization (Doctoral dissertation, Florida
Atlantic University).
31) McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction,
and organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of
Business and Management, 9(10), 28.
32) Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
applied psychology, 78(4), 538.
33) Monroe, M. (2005). Spirit Of Leadership. Whitaker House.
34) Nielsen, K, Randall, R, Yarker, J, & Brenner, S.O (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and well-being: A longitudinal
study.,Work and Stress, 22, pp.16-32.
35) Northouse, P.G. (2007). Transformational leadership. Leadership: Theory and practice, 4,
pp.175-206.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 974
36) Panaccio, A. &Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support,
organizational commitment and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study.
Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings 75(2):224-236.
37) Rasulzada, F. &Dackert, I., (2009). Organizational Creativity and Innovation in Relation
to Psychological Well-Being and Organizational Factors. Creativity Research Journal,
21(2-3), pp.191 – 198.
38) Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant - leadership. Global
Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 30.
39) Riggio, R.E. and Bass, B.M. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.
40) Rude, W. (2004). The connection between servant leadership and job burnout (Doctoral
dissertation, TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY).
41) Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719.
42) Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic
approach to psychological well-being. Journal of happiness studies, 9(1), 13-39.
43) Ryff, Carol D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 57(6), 1069-
1081.
44) Shlafer, R., Hergenroeder, A.C., Emans, S.J., Rickert, V.I., Adger Jr, H., Spear, B., Irwin
Jr, C.E., Kreipe, R.E., Walker, L.R. and Resnick, M.D. (2014). Adolescence as a critical
stage in the MCH Life Course Model: commentary for the Leadership Education in
Adolescent Health (LEAH) interdisciplinary training program projects. Maternal and child
health journal,18(2), pp.462-466.
45)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 975